In the 1901 case Voigt v. Detroit City, a dispute arose over taxation of property in Detroit. The plaintiff, John F. Voigt, argued that his property was being unfairly taxed at an inflated value compared to other properties in the city and sought relief from the courts. He claimed this violated both Michigan state law and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution which prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under law. The Supreme Court ruled against Voigt stating that while there may have been irregularities or errors made by tax assessors, it did not constitute a violation of constitutional rights unless it could be proven there was intentional discrimination or systematic undervaluation across all properties in Detroit. Furthermore, they stated that federal courts should avoid interfering with state tax matters unless clear violations were evident as these issues are primarily for local authorities to handle according to their own laws and procedures.

In the dissenting opinion for Voigt v. Detroit City, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance that prohibited bakeries from operating between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., arguing it violated property rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. He believed this law was an unreasonable interference in private business operations without serving any clear public interest or health concern, as there were no proven risks associated with night-time baking activities. Furthermore, he argued that such restrictions could lead to arbitrary limitations on other businesses under similar pretenses of protecting public welfare. In his view, if cities had unlimited power to regulate hours of labor in all trades and professions based on their own discretion rather than concrete evidence of harm or danger, it would undermine constitutional protections for individual liberty and property rights.